Kind of makes you wonder what that type of person, thinks marriage actually is?

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. AristotleNever discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato.."A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson

I think probably the majority comes from ignorance and lack of experience. In the 1970s, if I thought about gays at all, I assumed they were oversexed perverts because that was the gist of what I had read in novels. When I actually got to know people I knew were gay, I realized that they were no different than I was. I also learned that it was not a choice, they were who they were, just as I was who I was. I suspect that we are seeing a shift in approval from this demographic as more people come out, and more of us realize that all those perfectly normal people we know are gay.

I think there are some fundamentalist religionists who lack a good understanding of how their religion really developed and lack an understanding of context and difficulties in translation. I think this group also tends to lack an internal moral compass and assume that nobody else has internal moral compasses either. Without external laws, their appetites will apparently overwhelm them and they assume nobody else has any more self control either. I suspect change in this group will be slow, because they are not interested in Bible scholarship, and science is even worse.

I suspect there are a lot of self-loathing closeted gays out there who are probably the loudest of the naysayers. I am always astonished when I hear people ask where children will come from if we allow gay marriage. Well, duh, heterosexuals are not going to get into same sex marriages, so children will come from where they have always come from.

I think another fairly bitter group is one I'll call the losers, for lack of a better name. This is the group that for whatever reason, lack of cognitive skills, personality disorders, crappy childhoods, just don't make it well in life. They need someone to blame and to look down upon and since it is not PC to blame blacks or Jews, they go after gays and immigrants. They are not likely to change either.

Fortunately the rest of mentally healthy and reasonable educated people are capable of learning that those who are gay are just us. Not different in any substantial way at all. Which makes those in the other groups even more agitated because they are becoming a minority and that seems to scare them. If black and white becomes gray, how can they survive?

I think you cover it quite well.

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. AristotleNever discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato.."A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson

According to the 9th & 14th Amendment there is an objective equality between all consenting adults. That puts the onus on you to prove that such an equality does not exist for homosexuals. You are the one who mentioned right to sexually attractive or pleasing partners. I merely quoted it from your post.

No, according to some people want those amendments to say. Trying to shoehorn homosexuality in there might not work. Or, it very well could pass with flying colors.

The only way homosexuals are not objectively equal to heterosexuals would be if constitute a danger to society or they are inferior to heterosexuals based on their sexual preference. There is no objective peer-reviewed evidence that either case is true.

And what would that good reason be? Please explain it to us. I never said religion was made up boogeyman stories. However, I do say there are different interpretations of the meaning of various religious texts. There are many followers of those religions that fully believe in homosexual equality. Religion evolves as society does as we gain more and more knowledge about ourselves and the world we live in. It can't be anchored in the ancient past.

Evidently you're not going to tell is why you don't believe there is objective rationality. Saying we haven't presented any is simply poisoning the well. "Because I say so," is not a valid reason.

Being blown around by present whims isn't any wiser than being chained to the past.

Being chained in the past could mean that wives would the property of their husbands, people could be bought and sold as property, children could be stoned to death for being disobedient, so-called witches could be hung, and only white properties could vote.

What you've told is that you believe that the two are an apple to orange comparison. You have not explained why one biological difference in people is different from another biological difference.

The only reason to cling to what you call a fundamental principle appears to be that you believe the group asking for such a change are somehow inferior to the "normal" people in the majority group. Since American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association both state that homosexuality is normal behavior for LGBT individuals and is neither a disorder nor a dysfunction, it's incumbent upon you to explain why those medical experts are wrong.

People in the soft sciences aren't "medical experts." Also, said experts still haven't been able to even nail down an exact cause for homosexual attractions.

Your opinion is that they are not experts in their field. I guess all the schooling they had in the field was meaningless. I guess the neighborhood barber or bricklayer could do the job just as well. Pediatric Neuroendocrinologists now say that based on studies sexual orientation sexual orientation is likely caused by the direct action of testosterone or lack thereof as the fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period. Since sexual genital differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently.Link

Furthermore, save by rationalization, they've yet been able to explain how attraction to one's on sex, instead of or in place of the opposite sex, makes any sense at all -- especially when it flies right in the face of basic biology.

Once again, that observation only makes sense if the attraction is chosen. If is is biological then the only way that argument makes sense is if one are using it to claim that homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals. If that's how a person feels, it's their right to believe it, but it doesn't give them the right to discriminate.

And as usual there is no reason given for this claim. It appears to be that you are saying, "That is my opinion and that makes it right." I hate to tell you but the statement "this apple is green" or "that apple has a worm in it" rather than "this orange is an apple too." indicates that you believe that homosexuals have less value as people than heterosexual people.

In no sense does it indicate value as people. It is comparing the values of unions.

Past that, I can't help but wonder why you can't see what is so clear. Comparing one instance of heterosexual coupling (people of the same skin pigmentation vs. a couple with different skin pigmentations) to trying to throw homosexual pairings into the mix is, clearly, an apples-to-oranges comparison.

It's only apples to oranges if you believe that one biological difference is inferior to another biological difference.

"The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of man change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it." -- Thomas Paine: Rights of Man (1791)

I've never said gay parenting would be overtly harmful. Nor do I deny that in specific instances, it can be just as good, or even better, than instances of heteorsexual parenting.

Nor did I deny that it isn't a viable alternative family structure. Since I am living in an alternative family structure (blended family), I'm obviously all for alternative family structures.

What I'm saying is, there is good, intelligent reason to be highly skeptical that in the universal sense, gay marriage and parenting is anywhere on par with man-woman marriage and biological, mother-father parenting.

As I noted, every one of those studies involves a "soft" science. There are too many variables to accept it with the same weight as, say, research in chemistry or physics.

Having a mentally ill son, who has undergone extensive treatment, I know exactly how arbitrary psychology and psychiatry can be, and how flexible "facts" can be in those fields.

Also, the research "truths" of today have a tendancy to be turned on their heads tommorow.

But even beyond that, in order to accept that "universal" claim, one has to accept some dubious underlying implications, that being:

•The differences between men and women, especially in relation to how they might compliment each other in a parenting team -- either aren't real, or don't matter. (Bear in mind, psychology and psychiartry, the very fields you cite, have noted those differences, and their effects in parenting.)

There is no evidence that those differences have any negative effect on the children other than the bullying some of the children have to put up with from Neanderthal homophobes.

•Having both a mother and father doesn't really isn't important. (Please note... as I said above, those same fields have also produced volumes of research on related subjects, such as the vital importance a father plays in the healthy development of a girl, and her relationships with men later on.)

Again, there is no evidence that there is any negative effects children of same-sex couples, except as noted above.

There can be a biological parent-child bond of at least one parent in same-sex families. That biological bond is also not necessary or important when the child is adopted. I should know, I was adopted.

So yes, I think you are making an appeal to authority, and resting some broad assumptions on it. At the end of the day, I think all the relevant fields of study have "proven" is that gay parenting can work, and that it does not seem to destroy children.

Then if there's no harm to the child (other than that received by homophobic bullies and self-righteous people that believe that same-sex couples conspire to turn children into homosexuals) why shouldn't LGBT couples be encouraged to adopt or foster children who have no home or live in a home with a crack-whore mother who has no idea who the father is?

That's not the same as saying it's on universal par with biological mother-father parenting, nor would I hesitate to debate and question any expert making such a steep claim.

The first thing any expert would require is for you to present peer-reviewed evidence that same-sex families are not on a par with heterosexual parents.

Your claims so far are based on opinion, yet you refuse to accept any evidence that runs contrary to your opinion. Show me a peer-reviewed study that contradicts this abstract and the report that6 accompanies it. Or are pediatricians also unqualified to express a valid position?

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.Link

"The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of man change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it." -- Thomas Paine: Rights of Man (1791)

I've never said gay parenting would be overtly harmful. Nor do I deny that in specific instances, it can be just as good, or even better, than instances of heteorsexual parenting.

Nor did I deny that it isn't a viable alternative family structure. Since I am living in an alternative family structure (blended family), I'm obviously all for alternative family structures.

What I'm saying is, there is good, intelligent reason to be highly skeptical that in the universal sense, gay marriage and parenting is anywhere on par with man-woman marriage and biological, mother-father parenting.

As I noted, every one of those studies involves a "soft" science. There are too many variables to accept it with the same weight as, say, research in chemistry or physics.

Having a mentally ill son, who has undergone extensive treatment, I know exactly how arbitrary psychology and psychiatry can be, and how flexible "facts" can be in those fields.

Also, the research "truths" of today have a tendancy to be turned on their heads tommorow.

But even beyond that, in order to accept that "universal" claim, one has to accept some dubious underlying implications, that being:

•The differences between men and women, especially in relation to how they might compliment each other in a parenting team -- either aren't real, or don't matter. (Bear in mind, psychology and psychiartry, the very fields you cite, have noted those differences, and their effects in parenting.)

There is no evidence that those differences have any negative effect on the children other than the bullying some of the children have to put up with from Neanderthal homophobes.

•Having both a mother and father doesn't really isn't important. (Please note... as I said above, those same fields have also produced volumes of research on related subjects, such as the vital importance a father plays in the healthy development of a girl, and her relationships with men later on.)

Again, there is no evidence that there is any negative effects children of same-sex couples, except as noted above.

There can be a biological parent-child bond of at least one parent in same-sex families. That biological bond is also not necessary or important when the child is adopted. I should know, I was adopted.

So yes, I think you are making an appeal to authority, and resting some broad assumptions on it. At the end of the day, I think all the relevant fields of study have "proven" is that gay parenting can work, and that it does not seem to destroy children.

Then if there's no harm to the child (other than that received by homophobic bullies and self-righteous people that believe that same-sex couples conspire to turn children into homosexuals) why shouldn't LGBT couples be encouraged to adopt or foster children who have no home or live in a home with a crack-whore mother who has no idea who the father is?

That's not the same as saying it's on universal par with biological mother-father parenting, nor would I hesitate to debate and question any expert making such a steep claim.

The first thing any expert would require is for you to present peer-reviewed evidence that same-sex families are not on a par with heterosexual parents.

Your claims so far are based on opinion, yet you refuse to accept any evidence that runs contrary to your opinion. Show me a peer-reviewed study that contradicts this abstract and the report that6 accompanies it. Or are pediatricians also unqualified to express a valid position?

A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.Link

You're whistling past the graveyard here, IMO.

I said, yes, of course, gay parenting can work. So does step/adoptive parenting. (I'm both a step and adoptive parent. I have five children. One is biological.)

Cite all the studies you wish.

Denyting the reality of:

*The differences between men and women, as they compliment and relate to parenting.

*The importance of both a mother and father.

*The biological parent-child bond.

*The importance of an opposite-sex parent.

Is naive and stupid.

Furthermore, those exact fields of study you cite -- have studied and confiremed the reality and importance of all those things. If you don't belive me, look it up.

Except that's not what the research says. At all. The American Psychological Association, American Academy of Pediatrics and British Psychologica Society all say that kids raised in same-sex households turn out every bit as well-developed as those raised in opposite-sex households. I'll be nice and assume you're mistaken rather than consciously lying but either way, the research does not say what you claim it does.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Jun 8, 2012 -- 5:39PM, mytmouse57 wrote:•Having both a mother and father doesn't really isn't important. (Please note... as I said above, those same fields have also produced volumes of research on related subjects, such as the vital importance a father plays in the healthy development of a girl, and her relationships with men later on.)

Really??!!! Unless he is a molesting perv or abusive or a male chavanist jackass, which some of those are excellent actors, take the man who brutally raped me when i was 24 he was a friendly neighbor I met around the neighborhood who after many street conversations invited me to have dinner with him & his wife, only when I got inside their house dsid I find out that his wife was out of town, his house looked like the cozy little homemaker home he was about 40 so they had been married a long time . . .family photos and doilies everywhere but he wouldn't let me leave dragged me up the stairs face first, apparently his happy little homemaker wife had no idea what a monster she was married to.

And I also know for a fact that my daughter is better off not knowing her jackass of a father(not the rapist that was years ago) he was an obnoxious, chip on his shoulder drunk .

However my daughter does have as a male role model a terrific wonderful grandfather, & with that she is lightyears better off than the jackass!!!

oh and by the way I grew up with a terrific Dad and I am a lesbian. My daughter is a heterosexual (well she's going to be 12 next month but she has always liked only boys and she knows about my sexuality.) I was always a lesbian I was drunk and suicidal the night I spent with her father I was afraid I would kill myself if I went home that night That's how I ended up with her father, also had only lived here a short time and hadn't found the places to meet other gay people yet, by the way I have been sober , it will be 8 years in august while I'm sure her father is either dead from something alcohol related or still an active drunk.

*The differences between men and women, as they compliment and relate to parenting.

This has nothing to do with marriage.

*The importance of both a mother and father.

What is even more important than that is a loving parent or two. The sex is irrelevant.

*The biological parent-child bond.

Any bond with any loving adult is just as good.

*The importance of an opposite-sex parent.

Studies have shown that children from families with two "mommies" do BETTER! So much for your claim.

Is naive and stupid.

Ah, more poisoning the well. You just made claims, mostly absurdly wrong claims, and provided not one bit of rational argument to support them.

Furthermore, those exact fields of study you cite -- have studied and confiremed[sic] the reality and importance of all those things. If you don't belive[sic] me, look it up.

I cannot believe you since the studies you claim exist do not back up your claims. Most, if not all, of those studies would disagree with you. You only have emotionally based beliefs and claims to go on.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."― Robert G. Ingersoll,

...However my daughter does have as a male role model a terrific wonderful grandfather, & with that she is light years better off than the jackass!!!...

Sometimes I wonder where these homophobes come up with their absurd claims. Do they honestly believe that anyone would raise a kid without appropriate role models? Do they actually believe that, for example, a lesbian would keep her daughter completely isolated from men?

Your father sounds like a wonderful grandfather. Sometimes it is best, but sad, to have to keep a child away from a toxic parent.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."― Robert G. Ingersoll,

Heres what really gets me,the people that are anti abortion have to be pro adoption if they have any kind of compassion in their souls. If Gay committed couples want to adopt those children that would have been aborted otherwise how could you not support that? Seriously, anyone willing to say they would rather see the child dead than raised by GLTG couples? It isn't contagious and wont determine their sexual preferences. The willingness of the Gay community to adopt seems to be a solution to a problem to me.

'When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.' - Mark Twain